President Donald Trump warned that Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks against Americans, but his own defense secretary seems to be unable to back this claim.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper revealed in a Sunday interview with 'Face the Nation' on CBS that he "didn't see" specific evidence that supported the president's claim that Soleimani was planning attacks on four US embassies, which Trump touted in a Friday interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

"The president said that he believed that there probably could have been attacks against additional embassies," Esper said to host Margaret Brennan. "I shared that view. I know other members of the national security team shared that view."

Comment: In other words, he pulled it out of his nether regions. It was an unjustified murder. Why don't these cretins just come out and say it? They think they are above the law - just like practically all other administrations, in the U.S. and elsewhere. State power is an illusion of legality papered over the threat and use of brute force. These guys know it. That's why they do what they do, and get away with it. But most people still think their leaders have some kind of moral legitimacy when it comes to coercive action involving "national security". It might work that way in specific moments, but when it comes down to it, the people with the biggest guns get to do what they want.

"'Probably and could have been,' that is — that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence," Brennan replied.

"Well, the president didn't say there was a tangible — he didn't cite a specific piece of evidence," Esper said.

Asked if there was any specific evidence, Esper then replied, "I didn't see one with regard to four embassies. What I'm saying is I shared the president's view that probably, my expectation is they were going to go after our embassies."

Esper later told CNN's Jake Tapper that the president never claimed to have "specific evidence" of the imminent attacks he has warned Americans about.

The administration's shaky reasoning for Soleimani's assassination has earned them plenty of heat, with some saying they can't "keep their story straight."

"The public justification for this action has been all over the place from the beginning. They cannot keep their story straight. They're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Admitting it was an ideological revenge killing would be much more honest," journalist Mike Tracey tweeted in response to Esper's 'Face the Nation' interview.

Utah Senator Mike Lee similarly criticized the administration in a CNN interview where he said it's "frustrating" to have the president warn of "imminent" attacks, but to get "no details" about said attacks or the evidence behind the claims.

Others saw it as the latest example of Trump lying.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also recently failed to provide any concrete evidence about the potential danger of Soleimani when he spoke to the press. Pompeo insisted Trump was given "multiple pieces of information" in regard to "imminent" dangers against the US, but he failed to detail what that information was.

Despite struggling to explain the "imminence" of the situation, Pompeo insisted "we got it right" with the assassination. He also insisted that, "If you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that lead up to the strike."

Comment: More from Esper, this time telling Iran it needs to become a more "normal country":

"We're willing to sit down and discuss without precondition a new way forward, a series of steps by which Iran becomes a more normal country," Esper said on Sunday, speaking on CBS's 'Face the Nation'.

Asked whether there was a contradiction between calling the Iranian authorities "corrupt" and openly siding with anti-government protesters, yet expressing readiness to talk at the same time, Esper assured the show's host that it was a perfectly fine thing to do. Iranian authorities are "still a legitimate government" of the country he said, and therefore Donald Trump's offer to come and talk "without preconditions" still stands.

If U.S. leadership sets the bar for "normal", other countries should be forgiven for wanting nothing to do with such normality.

I'm working under the assumption that the current government of Iran is illegitimate. The Ayatollah in power is a result of the 1979 revolution no? The one which deposed the elected Shah? Am I missing something.

tczubernat To claim the current Iranian govt. is illegitimate because it occurred due to a US led "revolution" or coup, would be to admit that any vassal state which the US has conducted political subterfuge, that has led to said country's current invocation, is illegitimate as well.

I am not necessarily disagreeing, just riding the logic train down the tracks with you.